Fogbuster

.

This makes a ton of sense. In a sane world it would already be implemented:

Urine Test -- This guy has a point! This was written by a construction worker in Fort McMurray . Read on . . .

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay check, I work on a rig site for a Fort McMurray construction project. At any time I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. HOWEVER, what I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Understand - I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass, drink beer and smoke dope. Could you imagine how much money this country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?



//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

DarrylS

Are you advocating for crane operators and heavy equipment operators allowed to be stoned???

Or are you advocating another layer of government to administer drug tests at between 25 to 50 bucks each time???

It would be good for the economy as it would spur a whole bunch of cottage industries specializing in how to beat drug tests???

Would their be a safety net for the children of parents or would they starve.. how about reinstituting the "orphan trains".

Maybe they could then take all the priests and ministers and administer mandatory lie detector tests to see if they molested anyone lately...

All this from a poster who abhors the idea that Orwell's "1984" could be true...the inconsistency is maddening.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Fogbuster

Any excuse to avoid responsibility and accountability, eh. Some people seem to defend anything that allows abuse of public money, tax-payers' money. "America is so rich", such people falsely claim. But the truth is: America is in debt to the tune of several Trillions of dollars. But, for some, it's OK peachy fine to keep on giving away borrowed money to dope smokers and other drug abusers.

In China they execute drug dealers. Everybody in China knows the penalty for dealing drugs. Users are not treated very well, either. China now owns more than a Trillion dollars of U.S. debt (could end up being about 3 Trillion, or more, in the next four years). Hillary Clinton was just in Beijing begging the Chinese to keep on propping up the U.S. financial system by buying up Treasury notes. Who's system is more financially solvent, the society that caters to drug abusers or the society that cracks down on drug abuse?

A society that prospers and grows a wealthy citizenry is one that prevents drug abuse, works hard, and produces goods that are good for people. Ask WalMart.


//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

PressCoverage

Did you just praise WalMart? HOw long have you been out of the country, exactly?

Fogbuster

Do you have a point, or is speaking in code one of your professional qualifications??

In any case, Walmart has become the richest, most successful retail market in America, and it gets probably 80+% of its goods from China. See the connection: rich, successful, Chinese-made goods ?? Or do you need a diagram?



//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

Patters

Fog, in our country a person is presumed innocent. Asking a struggling mom to take a urine test strikes me evil, unless there's evidence of some sort. Besides, what would you do to those who fail those tests? Put them in jail? Turn them into homeless beggars? Also, I gather that you don't think that addiction is a disease. Those poor (and other) people who get arrested for doing drugs are mandated into drug rehab programs (or the more costly prison), and it's not easy for them to quit.

PatsFanInVa

Keep the narco-money at home. Grow, sell, and tax legalized marijuana in America. Continue to urine-test pilots, rig operators, et al., as a safety measure. Everybody else: don't come to work high, just like you wouldn't come to work drunk, for 99.9% of the population, because it will affect your work product. I don't know about you guys, but where I work there aren't active at-work alkies... they wouldn't last 10 seconds.

PFnV

Fogbuster

So, you and all people think like you can pool your considerable personal fortunes and take care of the drug abusers who are currently stealing money from the American tax-payers who live right, work hard, don't abuse drugs, and play by the rules.


//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

PatsFanInVa

Try answering the questions Patters raised, Fog. Here in the US, we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world in the first place. Who foots the bill for these guys in prison, if you bust them on their urine test? Exactly what are the mechanics of your proposal? Jail them if they pop positive? How do you fund the tests? Where is your proposal?

Try it without the namecalling and think it through.

PFnV

Patters

Yes, I think we need to take care of the needy, but that's atheism for you. I think we can do it with progressive income taxes, so as not to hurt low-income and middle-income wage earners too much. Taxes are a necessary part of running a civilized nation. Do you think every American should be tested for drugs, or just poor people? After all, every American does get government services. Wealthier people get more government services than poor people in many respects, since they depend on the SEC, the courts, highways, and other government tools to support their wealth. Should they be drug tested? Or are you only interested in beating up on the poor?